"What can the government do? One of the past responses by government, particularly from the party of which I am not a member, has been to have — to propose price fixing, or increase the taxes. Those plans haven't worked in the past."
But his next words sound almost as if they might have come from Jimmy Carter (affiliation: The Party of Which Bush Is Not a Member) almost 30 years ago:
"I think we need to follow suit on what we have been emphasizing, particularly through the energy bill, and that is to encourage conservation, to expand domestic production, and to develop alternative sources of energy like ethanol."
(Leaving aside that ethanol is the current problem -- and, from what I've heard, consumes more energy in its production and distribution than the fuel volume it replaces.)
Meanwhile, today's Boston Globe has an article about Ted Kennedy's maneuverings -- including back-room deals with Ted "Psycho" Stevens -- to kill the Cape Wind project.
(According to the Globe article, "He said he's against the project because it would create a range of environmental and navigational problems and would hurt tourism, one of the area's key industries." Several high-profile environmental groups are in favor of the project, and I haven't seen a reputable environmental group arguing against it, which is why I'm cautiously in favor of the project myself. As for the tourism argument, I've heard counterarguments: Existing offshore wind farms apparently generate tourism.)
So a liberal senator for a liberal state partners with a (neo?)conservative pro-ANWR-drilling pork-barrel enthusiast to sneak-scuttle an alternative-energy project. And now, with gasoline prices climbing, a cross-party coalition is criticizing the clause because they've realized this is not a good time to kill an alternative-energy project.
I don't even know what today's lesson is. Nothing is ever entirely good or entirely bad, perhaps?